Iowa lawmakers have different ideas about how to protect children who testify in court

DES MOINES — Children should be allowed to testify in Iowa courts remotely, rather than being forced to face their alleged abusers — on that, Iowa lawmakers agree.

State lawmakers disagree, however, on how exactly to ensure that protection in Iowa — a protection that was erased by a recent Iowa Supreme Court decision.

For years in Iowa, children in certain court cases were allowed to testify from a remote location, in front of a judge. But the Iowa Supreme Court last year, in the State of Iowa v. Derek Michael White, ruled that the constitutional right for an individual to face his or her accuser in court is violated when a child gives witness testimony from outside the courtroom.

As a result, Iowa is now the only state in the country that does not permit any form of remote testimony from children.

The Iowa Senate on Wednesday approved legislation that starts the process of amending the Iowa Constitution to state that the right of a person accused of a crime to confront their witnesses in court can be limited by state law in order to protect children or any witness with a mental illness.

That proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 91, which came from Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird’s office, passed the Senate on a unanimous, 47-0 vote Wednesday.

It’s a different approach than the one taken in the Iowa House, which last week passed a bill that would attempt to address the issue instead in state law. That bill, House File 602, passed the chamber on a near-unanimous, 95-1 vote.

Republicans hold agenda-setting majorities in both chambers of the Iowa Legislature.

AG Bird argues for amending Iowa Constitution

Bird’s office says the proper solution is to amend the Iowa Constitution to allow state law to provide for exceptions when children can testify remotely. That is what the Iowa Senate passed Wednesday.

Others, including a state advocacy group for trial lawyers, have argued a constitutional amendment goes too far and the issue can be resolved by a change in state law. That is what the Iowa House passed last week.

The AG’s Office has argued a change in state law would be insufficient because the Iowa Supreme Court still would rule that any remote testimony violates the Iowa Constitution.

  Buy Photo

“Kids must be protected, and abusers must be held accountable,” Bird said in a statement to The Gazette. “When the Iowa Supreme Court ruled last summer to remove protections for kids to testify by closed-circuit in court, it made Iowa an outlier. And since it was a court that removed those protections, it takes a constitutional amendment to restore them.

“My constitutional amendment respects the confrontation rights of defendants while ensuring kids are not forced to testify arm’s length from the abusers who beat or molested them.”

Amending the Iowa Constitution requires multiple steps, including approval from two consecutive Iowa General Assemblies — two legislative sessions separated by an election — and then a popular vote in a general election.

The earliest a proposed constitutional amendment could go to Iowa voters would be 2028.

The Iowa House also considered Bird’s proposal and passed it out of the chamber’s Judiciary Committee on an 18-3 vote. But House Joint Resolution 9 has not been considered by the full House.

Others argue Iowa law change will work without negative impacts

Supporters of addressing the issue via state law argue the Supreme Court only ruled the procedure unconstitutional based on one-way remote testimony, not the two-way remote testimony prescribed in the House bill, and that the Supreme Court may find the latter permissible.

Nathan Mundy, a defense lawyer and representative of the Iowa Association for Justice, argued earlier this year at a legislative hearing on the constitutional amendment that it is too broadly worded and expressed concern for falsely accused individuals to defend themselves in court.

“I just think this would greatly limit our right to confront people who have accused us of crimes,” Mundy said at the hearing.

  Buy Photo

Iowa Sen. Matt Blake, a Democrat from Urbandale, said some Senate Democrats also had concern with the broadness of the proposed constitutional amendment’s language. Nonetheless, the proposal passed the chamber unanimously.

“This is an essential fix that we need to have within the system,” Blake said Wednesday during brief debate in the Iowa Senate.

Which groups favor which proposal, and what’s next

No lobbying organization is registered in opposition to either proposal, according to state lobbying records for Senate Joint Resolution 9 and House File 602.

The Senate resolution — the proposed constitutional amendment — is supported by the Iowa County Attorney’s Association and the Iowa Catholic Conference, among others.

The House bill — the proposed fix in state law — is supported by the Iowa State Bar Association, the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, and the League of Women Voters of Iowa.

The Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Iowa State Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, and Blank Children’s Hospital are registered in support of both proposals.

Now, legislators — especially Republican leaders in the House and Senate — must determine a path forward. If the legislative fix passed by the House is to become law, it must also be approved by the Senate and signed by the governor. If the constitutional amendment is to advance, it also must pass the House sometime this year or next — and then be approved by both chambers again after the 2026 election.

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com

Get the latest Iowa politics and government coverage each morning in the On Iowa Politics newsletter.